Maharashtra Local Body Polls | Further Elections You Notify Must Be Within 50% Reservation Limit, Supreme Court Tells SEC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 25) adjourned the hearing of the Maharashtra local body elections matter till Friday, after the State of Maharashtra sought time, saying that they are in consultation with the State Election Commission on the issue regarding 50% ceiling limit for reservations in the local bodies.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, for the State Election Commission, informed the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that elections to 242 Municipal Councils and 42 Nagar Panchayats have already been notified to be held on December 2. Out of these 288 local bodies, 50% reservation limit is crossed in 57 bodies, Singh added.

Singh further informed that elections to the Zila Parishads, Municipal Corporations, and Panchayat Samitis are yet to be notified.

Taking note of this, the CJI orally said that the reservation in excess of 50% in the 57 bodies would be subject to the outcome of the litigation. CJI also asked the CEC not to cross the 50% limit in the local bodies where elections are yet to be notified.

"These 57, that would be subject to the outcome of these proceedings. Any further election you notify must comply with the 50% ceiling limit," CJI Kant told Singh.

The issue is related to the implementation of the OBC reservation in the local body elections in Maharashtra, which have been stalled since 2021. In December 2021, the Supreme Court stayed the OBC reservation, saying that it can be implemented only after satisfying the 'triple-tests'. Later, the State Government constituted the Jayant Kumar Banthia Commission in March 2022 to examine the issue of OBC reservation in the local body polls. The Banthia Commission submitted its report in July 2022.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court directed the holding of the elections within four months by giving OBC reservation as per the law prior to the Banthia Commission report. 

Last week, the Court noted that the State authorities had misconstrued this order to mean that reservations can exceed 50%. Clarifying that the direction to hold elections as per pre-Banthia situation was not a permission to cross the 50% limit, the bench had orally said that reservation should be within the ceiling limit.

Today, at the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the State, requested for adjournment, saying that the State was in consultation with the SEC on the issue.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that there were conflicting orders, as a 3-judge bench led by Justice Khanwilkar had in July 2022 directed the holding of the elections approving the Banthia Commisison(however, in August 2022, the Supreme Court ordered status quo on the OBC reservation).

SG said that the authorities acted as per a "bona fide interpretation of the order" and sought for time for consultations.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising,  not opposing the State's plea for adjournment, said that some of the petitioners have filed a contempt petition where they were essentially seeking a review of the May order to hold elections. Supporting the existing reservations notified, Jaising argued that elections cannot be stalled midway. She added that the Court has already clarified that the elections would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings in the Court.

CJI Kant also expressed that if the elections are found to have been held illegally, then the Court can annul them.

"If elections are held contrary to law, they can be [set aside]. Whatever is not constitutionally permissible can be [annulled]," the CJI said. Vikas Singh replied that it would result in the wastage of public money and pressed that the elections should be stalled. Senior Advocate Narender Hooda also submitted that the 50% ceiling limit cannot be crossed, calling it a "Lakhsman Rekha."

When Singh doubted the numbers given by the SEC regarding the local bodies where the 50% limit is crossed, the bench asked the SEC to present a specific list.

Clarifying that the Court will not stall the elections and was only trying to iron out the creases, CJI Kant said : "Right now we are not expressing anything on merit. This is a workable arrangement to ensure that the democracy in the grassroots is revived. Today, in this fight for 50-60%, what is happening? People are not getting any representation at all. We will allow the elections to be held. We are only trying to iron out the creases. If you find some grey area, we can constitute a larger bench."

Jaising said that her only concern was that the OBCs should not be knocked out.

"The consequence of the acceptance of the argument that they are making will be to completely knock out the OBCs. Because Maharashtra has a heavy tribal population in scheduled areas. If you add that along with the SC,  it will complete 50%," she submitted.

"No, no. How can there be democracy by excluding OBCs?," CJI Kant said.

Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphde submitted: "The problem is that there are two conflicting principles. The Constitution Bench of this Court said that reservations should be in proportion to the population in the constituency. Then there is a rider of 50%. But in some areas, 99% is tribal population. What do we do?"

Justice Bagchi then pointed out that the Constitution Bench judgment in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India has carved out an exception for such situations.

At this juncture, CJI also told  Balbir Singh to broadly inform on the next date about the OBC percentage in areas where the 50% limit is breached.

Jaising submitted that the Banthia commission has knocked out OBC reservation by a substantial 50-60%. "So our representation has gone down. Banthia has brought it drastically down. The real problem is that there is no caste census after 1931. This is why the Government of India has announced that they are going to do caste census," Jaising said.

"Whatever we do, we should not divide society on caste lines," CJI Kant said. "We are only asking for proportionate representation," Jaising replied.

On November 17, the Court orally expressed that total reservation was not permitted by it to exceed 50% and that the state authorities seemingly misconstrued its order. Pointing to the May 6 order of the Court, Justice Kant further noted that elections were directed to be held as per situation prevailing before Banthia Commission report. The judge added that there was a 3-judge bench order of the Court pertaining to Maharashtra and unless that is considered, the 2-judge bench will perhaps not be in a position to issue a contrary direction.

When the bench expressed that the nominations may be deferred until the next date of hearing (today), SG Tushar Mehta suggested that the any developments in the meantime may remain subject to the Court's further orders.

Case Title: RAHUL RAMESH WAGH Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021 (and connected cases)